Scottish government's planned legal reforms risk politicising the legal profession and undermining the separation of powers that's key to democracy – Kenny MacAskill MSP

The separation of powers has been an issue in Scotland over recent years because of the Lord Advocate’s twin roles as a senior government legal adviser and, simultaneously, head of the prosecution service.
Lord Carloway, the Lord President, has strongly criticised proposed reforms to the way lawyers are regulatedLord Carloway, the Lord President, has strongly criticised proposed reforms to the way lawyers are regulated
Lord Carloway, the Lord President, has strongly criticised proposed reforms to the way lawyers are regulated

To be fair to the SNP, they can say that they weren’t responsible for its creation, as it’s an historic anachronism. But they have brought it into focus and showed the real need for the separation through recent actions. Shamefully, though, there seems to be no urgency being shown by them to address it.

However, their lack of alacrity on that issue has now been compounded by another incursion into the separation of powers debate and in this they’re wholly culpable.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The suggestion of replacing the powers of the court and ultimate responsibility of the Lord President over the legal profession with a body, or a quango, call it what you may, that is appointed by Parliament is plain wrong.

It’s not simply that it puts further powers the way of the government. After all, Parliament is dominated by the administration in charge and, to date, backbench rebellions and rejection of government diktats have been few in Holyrood – and not just under the SNP. What the government wants, it tends to get.

Fair and well, you might say that’s democracy. But democracy also rests on the separation of powers, and not just between government and prosecution service but government and the courts.

Read More
Planned legal reforms in Scotland condemned by judges and branded an 'assault on...

The historic tripartite split has been between government, parliament and courts. Whatever lapses may be made by the first two should at least be able to be challenged by citizens in the third. But if the former take command of the latter, then you’ve a problem.

Just how they managed to contrive this mess is rather hard to fathom. Law has become much more of a business than a profession in recent years.

But still, being driven by the Competition and Mergers Authority, which suggested change was required, seems rather strange for what’s a fundamental tenet of our civic society. The Law Society, perhaps pushed by more commercial lawyers, seems to have forgotten the adage of beware of what you wish for.

Thankfully it’s now resulted in a huge backlash. The Dean of the Faculty of Advocates and other leading court lawyers haven’t been shy in coming forward to condemn it.

More importantly, the Lord President, supported by the judiciary, has lambasted it. Given regular discussions that take place between government and their lordships, it can only be assumed that the former ignored the latter who’d been making clear their objections long before launching the final rocket.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Lawyers are officers of court. Trust is given and an ethos maintained through that. Ultimate direction is from the Lord President and it cascades down.

They’re entirely separate from government and its about adherence to the rule of law, not diktats from politicians. If that’s eroded, even if not just ended, it undermines the integrity of the profession, as well as driving a coach and horses through the separation of powers.

The government should bin this fast.

Kenny MacAskill is Alba Party MP for East Lothian

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.

If you haven't already, please consider supporting our trusted, fact-checked journalism by taking out a digital subscription.